What a stupid, terrible thing to do. I hope these kids were just thoughtless idiots that didn't think things through, instead of willfully hurting someone with possible permanent damage.

But what about the passengers in the car? Should only the individual that did the throwing be prosecuted or the whole team in the vehicle? Long gone are the days when I hung out with kids/people that could get me in trouble, so I haven't thought about the 'guilty by association' process for a while. It really doesn't seem right to me to persecute the kids in the backseat or the passenger's seat of the car, when only one person (presumably) did the damage. We've got no way (yet) to know if the others were encouraging or dismissive to the 'prank'.

What a stupid, terrible thing to do. I hope these kids were just thoughtless idiots that didn't think things through, instead of willfully hurting someone with possible permanent damage.

But what about the passengers in the car? Should only the individual that did the throwing be prosecuted or the whole team in the vehicle? Long gone are the days when I hung out with kids/people that could get me in trouble, so I haven't thought about the 'guilty by association' process for a while. It really doesn't seem right to me to persecute the kids in the backseat or the passenger's seat of the car, when only one person (presumably) did the damage. We've got no way (yet) to know if the others were encouraging or dismissive to the 'prank'.

I would think if there was a "cameraman" videotaping the event to post on youtube, then he is as guilty as the guy who tossed the bowl of soup, i.e. co-conspirator, in on the pre-meditation of the violent act. If there are others in the car, I guess it might come down to how much culpability they had? Was one of them the "owner" of the car, letting his friends with more bravado commit the crime while he watches?

I would think if there was a "cameraman" videotaping the event to post on youtube, then he is as guilty as the guy who tossed the bowl of soup, i.e. co-conspirator, in on the pre-meditation of the violent act. If there are others in the car, I guess it might come down to how much culpability they had? Was one of them the "owner" of the car, letting his friends with more bravado commit the crime while he watches?

Hmm, that reminds me of a movie I studied in college, Man Bites Dog the unrated version (the rated version is much more tame). It was a French mock-documentary about a criminal with a camera crew ala COPS. And it explores how much the cameramen are responsible for filming what another person does. My gut reaction is that the cameramen are not responsible for what they film, but it's certainly something to explore.

Hmm, that reminds me of a movie I studied in college, Man Bites Dog the unrated version (the rated version is much more tame). It was a French mock-documentary about a criminal with a camera crew ala COPS. And it explores how much the cameramen are responsible for filming what another person does. My gut reaction is that the cameramen are not responsible for what they film, but it's certainly something to explore.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103905/

If the cameraman is an innocent bystander and video tapes that is one thing, if he knowingly goes along to tape a crime to post it on youtube, he's a co-conspirator. I don't see how to view it any other way. But I guess if that is someone's defense, "hey, i was just the cameraman, i'm innocent", then you don't want me to be on your jury.

If the cameraman is an innocent bystander and video tapes that is one thing, if he knowingly goes along to tape a crime to post it on youtube, he's a co-conspirator. I don't see how to view it any other way. But I guess if that is someone's defense, "hey, i was just the cameraman, i'm innocent", then you don't want me to be on your jury.

Legally, I don't know the answer. But in my heart/mind, I'm against censorship. And I can extrapolate that to 'I don't like what you are doing, but I can't change that, so I am just filming the facts'. That's just me though. Thank goodness I'm not in charge or I might be worse than King Friday! (I never liked King Friday)

Interests:Sole proprietor: Tailored Resume Services
Volunteer: Court Appointed Special Advocate for a child in the foster care system

Posted 07 December 2010 - 04:37 PM

Legally, I don't know the answer. But in my heart/mind, I'm against censorship. And I can extrapolate that to 'I don't like what you are doing, but I can't change that, so I am just filming the facts'. That's just me though. Thank goodness I'm not in charge or I might be worse than King Friday! (I never liked King Friday)

This isn't a news cameraman filming news. This is a kid who knew the assault was going to take place -- hence the camera in his hand. Perhaps he's an accessory or a conspirator, but he isn't innocent.

Job Search Consultant
Tailored Resume Services
(916) 984-0855

Volunteer, Court Appointed Special Advocate for Sacramento CASA * I Am for the Child
Making a Difference in the Life of Abused and Neglected Children in Foster Carehttp://www.sacramentocasa.org/

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. ~ Edward Everett Hale

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~ Anne Frank

Legally, I don't know the answer. But in my heart/mind, I'm against censorship. And I can extrapolate that to 'I don't like what you are doing, but I can't change that, so I am just filming the facts'. That's just me though. Thank goodness I'm not in charge or I might be worse than King Friday! (I never liked King Friday)

Artistic or documentary is one thing and agree with you but stupid stunts like this are another....cameraman is a participant in the crime. They often egg on more drama, action or harmful ideas to make it more exciting.

Call me a wet blanket but I hate pranks. There's always someone who is made fun of, made to feel stupid or otherwise hurt. How is that a good thing?

As for what happened, they knowingly caused pain and injury to someone, they need to pay for their crime. Preferably in jail where they will feel some of the same pain and humiliation.

I view pranks as one of those things where there is a time & a place for everything. I agree with you to an extent. Pranks that hurt someone's feelings aren't funny. Pranks between friends where both parties can laugh at it, i.e. the butt of the prank can laugh with his friend "ya got me this time" are OK.

This is a little different, but IMO, it's the same kind of thing. My friends I backpack with every summer, we get a kick out of finding ways to insult/denigrate each other. We say things to each other, I wouldn't ever think of saying to anyone else. Because we do it all in good fun. We know we are good friends that "love" each other (i.e. friendship that is as close or closer than some family members), so we appreciate the humour in the insults, it's a game to us.

Pranks (and insults) directed at strangers or people you are not real close with, aren't appreciated by the recipient and therefore are inappropriate. This can be especially true in the workplace. Even if your prank is with a close work buddy, sometimes the co-workers in the immediate area aren't so appreciative and if the prank affects them, then it is wrong to do so.

And now for a little example, I hope you don't mind the insult

Chefraven, if you insist on being called a wet blanket, then I'll accomodate you "You're a wet blanket!" OK, just kidding, I don't really think of you as that.